Robbie Loving Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Crikey, you think that's a safe assumption to make? If alcohol was on his breath, yes. If he had been drinking tea all day, where had the alcohol on his breath come from? Afterall, he had only been drinking tea. I don't recall the person who was recording, denying the blue mercedes was his, so it is safe to assume the car is his and that he wasn't denying driving there. His refusal to take a breathalyser is a good indication that he feels he may be over the limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MizsterJones Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 The copper is clearly convinced the man said two. Or does the conspiracy theory stretch to him thinking "I know he said tea but I'm going to pretend I heard two on camera and hope nobody notices"? As has been pointed out, the words are irrelevant, if the copper believes its on the bloke's breath he can request a a breath test. The protester will either pass or fail. I fail to see how such a simple clip is being used as more tiresome propaganda. Desperation? No he cant ,the man would have to commit a public disorder offense or be drunk and incapable ,it is not against the law to simply have had a drink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 If alcohol was on his breath, yes. If he had been drinking tea all day, where had the alcohol on his breath come from? Afterall, he had only been drinking tea. I don't recall the person who was recording, denying the blue mercedes was his, so it is safe to assume the car is his. His refusal to take a breathalyser is a good indication that he feels he may be over the limit. Maybe you should read the transcript I posted a little further up then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salsafan Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 No of course not. But there's no denying that the policeman knows full well he was saying tea. The way I saw it was that either he was scared or he ploughed on anyway despite what he heard. Whether it was the fact that he did not wanted his ego bruised. Cos if you see it, he continually said it out loud, but really he was not making eye contact with the guy. Meaning he really was not listening but doing so out of diversion. Cos what else can he do, if he is used to actually arresting somebody. I think he possibly got caught cos you can see his later actions whereby he was allover the place and distracted, and I think he was looking for a way out of the situation and was quite confused. That is why he then handed the situation onto his colleague to handle in the end. Maybe he bought himself time until he figured out what he should have done with the situation. That is what it seems to me to be happening. There was a moment whereby you can see that his facial expression showed a surprised response. Maybe it was wise of him to ask his colleagues to intervene. (I personally don't like to watch these kind of videos as it can be quite upsetting. I don't have a strong view on the police, unless I see the situation and facts before me. In this kind of instance, it is the police being out of line. It also is surprising to me to read the various responses too from different individuals despite the actual facts shown. Why doesn't other just say that, even the police can make human errors and be done with ? Cos to then say that the guy is doing his job despite him being out of line is like coveting the sanctity of what the police force is about to begin with. "See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil." ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qualtrough Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 At which point does it seem like the guy was backtracking about "having two"?... Cop: (Agitated and shoving the observer) I could arrest you, but I'm not going to arrest you, so.. it's in your benefit - are you drunk? Have you been drinking this morning? You've been drinking this morning Observer: No I have not Cop: You were drinking this morning Observer: No I've not Cop: You've been drinkin' Observer: I've had tea Cop: You've arrived in a car Observer: No I've not Cop: You arrived in a car this morning, you've had a drink, haven't you, you've had a drink this morning Last I heard, it isn't an offense to consume alcohol, not that I think the cop could smell it anyway. Crikey, you think that's a safe assumption to make? The cop also says "you've just said you've had two" Two what? Two teas? Again, bearing in mind the cop doesn't have to extract a confession why say these words unless genuinely believed? ---------- Post added 04-02-2014 at 23:10 ---------- No he cant ,the man would have to commit a public disorder offense or be drunk and incapable ,it is not against the law to simply have had a drink. The reference to the car was a red herring then? ---------- Post added 04-02-2014 at 23:10 ---------- As a mind reader, I can confirm the policeman knew the guy meant tea. Why aren't you on Channel 4 with Dynamo making money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie Loving Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Maybe you should read the transcript I posted a little further up then Maybe you should revisit the video where the copper states the car he came in and he never denies it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megalithic Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 If you're a mind reader perhaps. As he doesn't need to extract a worded 'confession' tea or two is all irrelevant. My years of reading body language and voices, as opposed to minds tells me the cop believes what he says. He also has no motive to lie, he only needs a breathylyser. Are you a cop ? If alcohol was on his breath, yes. If he had been drinking tea all day, where had the alcohol on his breath come from? Afterall, he had only been drinking tea. I don't recall the person who was recording, denying the blue mercedes was his, so it is safe to assume the car is his and that he wasn't denying driving there. His refusal to take a breathalyser is a good indication that he feels he may be over the limit. Utter rubbish. This is not a police state, they have no right to throw arbitary accusations at you then expect you to prove otherwise. Our law actually specifies the opposite. I wouldn't have taken the test either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epic Fail Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Why aren't you on Channel 4 with Dynamo making money? I don't want fame. I make my money from Sheffield forumers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie Loving Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Utter rubbish. This is not a police state, they have no right to throw arbitary accusations at you then expect you to prove otherwise. Our law actually specifies the opposite. I wouldn't have taken the test either. He was wanting to make the coppers look foolish. His constant questioning on if he is arrested shows this when he has been told he is being detained. Why not take the breathalyser and make them look even worse? Edit: What is total rubbish is saying you hope he loses his job over this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qualtrough Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Are you a cop ? Utter rubbish. This is not a police state, they have no right to throw arbitary accusations at you then expect you to prove otherwise. Our law actually specifies the opposite. I wouldn't have taken the test either. Are you? With those detective skills you should be: "Ere Guv, this ones defended the police, he must be one..." "Don't be silly PC Megatron, he's only doing what most of the country do, you're spending too much time undercover as a crusty" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.